{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420081008","title":"TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2008-05-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.163(d), 192.179(b)(1), 192.317(b), 192.475(a), 192.475(b), 192.481(a), 192.706(a), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420081008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420081008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420081008","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420081008","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.163(d),  192.179(b)(1),  192.317(b),  192.475(a),  192.475(b),  192.481(a),  192.706(a),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2008-05-19 and is reported as closed as of 2014-11-19. Proposed civil penalty: $28,000. Assessed civil penalty: $19,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420081008_Closure_11192014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081008/420081008_Closure_11192014.pdf\n\n420081008_Closure_11192014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081008/420081008_Closure_11192014_text.pdf\n\n420081008_Final Order_10282013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081008/420081008_Final%20Order_10282013.pdf\n\n420081008_Final Order_10282013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081008/420081008_Final%20Order_10282013_text.pdf\n\n420081008_NOPV PCP PCO_05192008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081008/420081008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05192008.pdf\n\n420081008_NOPV PCP PCO_05192008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081008/420081008_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05192008_text.pdf\n\n420081008_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Hearing__06262008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420081008/420081008_Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Hearing__06262008.pdf\n\n420081008_NOPV PCP PCO_05192008_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 19, 2008\nMr. Bill Cope\nVice President Eastern Operations\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Co\nPO Box 2563\nBirmingham AL 35202\nCPF 4-2008-1008\nDear Mr.Cope:\nDuring January, February, March, April, May, September and October 2006, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) pursuant to Chapter 601\nof 49 United States Code inspected your Tennessee Gas Pipeline facilities and records in\nTexas and Louisiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violation(s) are:\n1. §192.163 Compressor stations: Design and construction.\n(d) Fenced areas. Each fence around a compressor station must have at least\ntwo gates located so as to provide a convenient opportunity for escape to a place\nof safety, or have other facilities affording a similarly convenient exit from the\narea. Each gate located within 200 feet (61 meters) of any compressor plant\nbuilding must open outward and, when occupied, must be openable from the\ninside without a key.\nIt was observed during the field portion of the inspection that Alamo compressor station had a\nlocked personnel gate approximately 50’ west of the compressor. The operator later supplied\nPHMSA with pictures showing that a crash bar was installed on this gate.\n\n\n\n2. §192.179 Transmission line valves.\n(b) Each sectionalizing block valve on a transmission line, other than offshore\nsegments, must comply with the following:\n(1) The valve and the operating device to open or close the valve must be\nreadily accessible and protected from tampering and damage.\nDuring the inspection it was observed that, a 16\" block valve [507G-106] and a 24\" valve [512-1]\nat Hwy 332 and valve 404 were not protected against damage and were accessible to vehicular\ntraffic. Inadequate protection from damage was also observed at some other valve locations:\nLirette on line 523R100 were only enclosed by a 4 foot high fence; Fences were unlocked and\ndowned (due to Katrina) at the Mississippi River crossing.\nAlso during the inspection it was observed that valves were not protected from tampering. The\noperator installs locks on its valves to prevent tampering but these locks were not present at\nsome locations: valves at Lirette on line 523R100; valves at LaRose, Delta Duck and Mississippi\nRiver crossing.\n3. §192.317 Protection from hazards.\n(b) Each above ground transmission line or main, not located offshore or in\ninland navigable water areas, must be protected from accidental damage by\nvehicular traffic or other similar causes, either by being placed at a safe distance\nfrom the traffic or by installing barricades.\nTennessee Gas is not protecting their pipeline from accidental damage where lateral 14D-100\ntakes off from line 1 and line 2. During the inspection it was observed that there was evidence\nof the above ground piping being struck by agricultural equipment.\n4. §192.475 Internal corrosion control: General\n(b) Whenever any pipe is removed from a pipeline for any reason, the internal\nsurface must be inspected for evidence of corrosion. If internal corrosion is\nfound-\n(1) The adjacent pipe must be investigated to determine the extent of internal\ncorrosion:\n(2) (3) Replacement must be made to the extent required by the applicable\nparagraphs of §192.485, §192.487, or§ 192,489; and,\nSteps must be taken to minimize the internal corrosion.\nDuring the inspection it was identified that two 4 inch hot taps were installed on July 14-22, 2005\non Morales line. As a part of this activity hot tap coupons were removed. Records were\nrequested during the inspection but Tennessee Gas Pipeline did not provide a record of an\ninternal inspection as required by 192.475 (b).\n5. §192.475 Internal corrosion control: General\n2\n\n\n\n(a) Corrosive gas may not be transported by pipeline, unless the corrosive effect\nof the gas on the pipeline has been investigated and steps have been taken to\nminimize internal corrosion.\n§192.477 Internal corrosion control: Monitoring.\nIf corrosive gas is being transported, coupons or other suitable means must be\nused to determine the effectiveness of the steps taken to minimize internal\ncorrosion. Each coupon or other means of monitoring internal corrosion must be\nchecked two times each calendar year, but with interval not exceeding 7 1/2\nmonths.\nAs part of TGP’s overall corrosion control program, they install internal corrosion monitoring\ncoupons to evaluate the corrosive effect of their product. TGP’s procedures specify that they\ninstall coupons for short periods of time (usually 1 month) and then the coupons are evaluated.\nSpecific response and remediation actions are established depending on the condition of the\ncoupon. Per §192.477 and accepted industry standards these coupons should remain in the\ngas stream continuously, then removed and evaluated two times per year. TGP’s conduct and\nwritten procedures do not follow the prescriptive requirement of these regulations.\nAt TGP’s Kinder station the internal corrosion monitoring coupon [S4504] was installed on\n12/14/04 and removed on 01/19/05. Records provided during the inspection and TGP’s\nprocedures require (based on the condition of the coupon) that TGP “re-evaluate immediately”.\nA replacement monitoring coupon [S5340] was not installed at that location until 01/20/06. TGP\ndid not comply with applicable requirements and could not demonstrate that it followed its own\nprocedures.\nDuring the inspection it was observed that TGP’s coupons used to investigate internal corrosion\nare not always placed in effective locations. It is unlikely that installations such as can be found\non platform Ship Shoal 167A (where the coupon is held off to the side of a vertical riser) will be\nable to provide meaningful results. The coupons should be placed such that they are near the\narea where corrosive constituents accumulate most (bottom of the pipe).\n6. §192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is\nexposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is located:\nOnshore\nOffshore\nThen the frequency of inspection is:\nAt least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months.\nAt least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months.\nThe Tennessee Gas Pipeline/Nautilus interchange was installed January 2002. Tennessee\nGas could not provide documentation at the inspection to demonstrate that subsequent\natmospheric corrosion control monitoring and inspection had occurred.\n3\n\n\n\n7. 8. §192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys.\nLeakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However, in the case\nof a transmission line which transports gas in conformity with §192.625 without an\nodor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector equipment must be\nconducted-\n(a) In Class 3 locations, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at least twice\neach calendar year; and\n(b) In Class 4 locations, at intervals not exceeding 4 1/2 months, but at least four\ntimes each calendar year.\nTennessee Gas class 3 leak survey on lines 409A - 101 and 409A - 102 exceeded 7.5 months\nin 2005. The survey was conducted on March 8, 2005 and not again until November 9, 2005.\n§192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any emergency\nmust be inspected and partially operated at intervals not exceeding 15 months,\nbut at least once each calendar year.\nAccording to records reviewed during the inspection, valve maintenance on \"El Banito.\" line\nexceeded 15 months between January 26, 2004 to August 17, 2005.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000\nfor any related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances\nand supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has\nrecommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $28,000 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n5 $18,000\n6 $10,000\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to items 2, 3, 5 and 6 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to\nTennessee Gas Pipeline. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed\nand made a part of this Notice.\nWe have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents involved in this case,\npertaining to items 1, 4, 7 and 8 and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action\nor penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to correct the items identified in\nthis letter. Failure to do so will result in Tennessee Gas Pipeline being subject to additional\n4\n\n\n\nenforcement action.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be\nadvised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being\nmade publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information\nqualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days\nof receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in\nthis Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2008-1008 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n5\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co (TGP) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Tennessee\nGas Pipeline Co with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice, TGP should review their procedures\nrelated to §192.179. TGP should survey their valve locations and install\nadequate protection from tampering and damage.\nIn regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice, TGP should review their procedures\nrelated to §192.317. TGP should take the necessary steps to ensure that their\nfacilities are protected from accidental damage.\nIn regard to item 5 of the Notice, TGP should review their procedures related to\nuse and evaluation of internal corrosion coupons and make necessary changes\nto be in compliance.\nIn regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice, TGP should review their procedures\nrelated to §192.481. TGP shall conduct the appropriate inspection and perform\nany required remediation.\nThe operator should complete these items within 60 days after receipt of a Final\nOrder. Submit documentation to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region,\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.\nTennessee Gas shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M.\nSeeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses,\nand 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to\npipeline infrastructure.\n6\n\n420081008_Final Order_10282013_text.pdf\n\nOCTOBER 28, 2013\nMr. Norman G. Holmes\nPresident\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC\n1001 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2008-1008\nDear Mr. Holmes:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It partially withdraws\none allegation of violation, makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $19,000, and\nspecifies actions that need to be taken by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, to comply\nwith the pipeline safety regulations.\nThis is also to acknowledge receipt of the $10,000 payment Tennessee Gas made by wire\ntransfer dated June 30, 2008. When the remaining $9,000 penalty amount is paid, and the terms\nof the compliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Rod Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nDavid M. Waterson, Jr., Esq., Counsel for Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC,\n1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77002\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nTennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, ) )\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\nCPF No. 4-2008-1008\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween January and October 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Tennessee\nGas Pipeline Company, LLC (TGP or Respondent), in Texas and Louisiana.1 TGP operates the\nTennessee Gas Pipeline, which consists of approximately 14,000 miles of pipeline extending\nfrom locations on the Gulf of Mexico to Canada.\n2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 19, 2008, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that TGP had committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192,\nassessing a civil penalty of $28,000 for the alleged violations, and ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed finding that\nRespondent had committed certain other probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and warning\nTGP to take appropriate corrective action or be subject to future enforcement action.\nTGP responded to the Notice by letter dated June 26, 2008 (Response), and contested the\nallegations contained in Items 4 and 5. The company paid the proposed civil penalty of $10,000\nfor Item 6, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. As for the proposed compliance order, the\ncompany provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken and planned to take\nwith respect to Items 2 and 3, but objected to the proposed compliance terms for Items 5 and 6.\nAlthough TGP did not specifically request a hearing, the Southwest Region recommended that a\nhearing be held. A hearing was subsequently held on November 13, 2008, in Houston, Texas,\nwith an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing,\n1 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of El Paso Corporation, which owns and\noperates approximately 42,000 miles of interstate natural gas pipelines in the United States. See\nhttp://www.elpaso.com/pipelines (last accessed November 6, 2011).\n2 SEC Form 10-K, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, March 1, 2010.\n\n\n\n2\nRespondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing, TGP provided additional written\nmaterials and a post-hearing statement for the record, by letter dated December 9, 2008\n(Closing).\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nUncontested Items\nIn its Response and at the hearing, TGP did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it\nviolated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.179(b)(1), which states:\n§ 192.179 Transmission line valves.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each sectionalizing block valve on a transmission line, other than\noffshore segments, must comply with the following:\n(1) The valve and the operating device to open or close the valve must\nbe readily accessible and protected from tampering and damage.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.179(b)(1) by failing to protect\nseveral block valves from tampering and damage. Specifically, the Notice alleged that several\nvalves were either accessible to vehicular traffic, not adequately protected by fences, or left\nunlocked. Respondent did not contest these allegations of violation. Accordingly, based upon a\nreview of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.179(b)(1) by\nfailing to protect several block valves from tampering and damage.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.317(b), which states:\n§ 192.317 Protection from hazards.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each aboveground transmission line or main, not located offshore\nor in inland navigable water areas, must be protected from accidental\ndamage by vehicular traffic or other similar causes, either by being placed\nat a safe distance from the traffic or by installing barricades.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.317(b) by failing to protect an\naboveground transmission line from accidental damage by vehicular damage or other similar\ncauses. Specifically, the Notice alleged that there was evidence that a section of an\naboveground transmission line had been struck by agricultural equipment. Respondent did not\ncontest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.317(b) by failing to protect an aboveground\ntransmission line from accidental damage by vehicular traffic or other similar causes.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a), which states:\n§ 192.481 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) Each operator must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline\nthat is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric\ncorrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is\nlocated: Then the frequency of inspection is:\nOnshore…….. At least once every 3 calendar years, but with\nintervals not exceeding 39 months\nOffshore…….. At least once each calendar year, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 15 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect a\nportion of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once\nevery three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that TGP could not provide documentation that a pipeline interchange installed in\nJanuary 2002 had ever been inspected for atmospheric corrosion. Respondent did not contest\nthis allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.481(a) by failing to inspect a portion of pipeline for\natmospheric corrosion within the required intervals.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nContested Item\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.475(a) and 192.477,\nwhich state:\n§ 192.475 Internal corrosion control: General.\n(a) Corrosive gas may not be transported by pipeline, unless the\ncorrosive effect of the gas on the pipeline has been investigated and\nsteps have been taken to minimize internal corrosion.\n§ 192.477 Internal corrosion control: Monitoring.\nIf corrosive gas is being transported, coupons or other suitable\nmeans must be used to determine the effectiveness of the steps taken to\nminimize internal corrosion. Each coupon or other means of\nmonitoring internal corrosion must be checked two times each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 7½ months.\n\n\n\n4\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.475(a) and 192.477 by failing to\nconduct its internal corrosion control monitoring program in a manner that effectively\ndetermined that any internal corrosion was being minimized. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat TGP’s use of corrosion coupons in its internal corrosion control monitoring program was not\ncarried out in a manner that effectively monitored for corrosivity and that TGP did not always\nplace its corrosion coupons in locations where they would be effective. In particular, the Notice\ncited the placement of Ship Shoal Coupon 167A as ineffective due to its location off to the side\nof a vertical riser, as opposed to nearer the bottom of the pipe where any corrosive constituents\nwould be likely to accumulate. The Notice also alleged that TGP installed corrosion coupons for\nshort, discontinuous periods of time which did not meet the requirements of § 192.477 that\ncoupons be maintained in the gas stream and then removed and evaluated two times per year. In\nparticular, the Notice cited Coupon S4504 as being removed on January 19, 2005, but not\nreplaced until Coupon S5340 was installed at that location on January 20, 2006.\nAt the hearing and in its Response and Closing, TGP contested these allegations. TGP argued\nbroadly that it transported tariff quality gas, not corrosive gas, and that as a result it could not be\nfound in violation for the manner or effectiveness of its use of corrosion coupons since corrosion\ncontrol monitoring is only required for pipelines that transport corrosive gas.3 TGP also argued\nthat Ship Shoal Coupon 167A was placed in a location that is effective for determining the\ncorrosivity of a gas/liquid hydrocarbon (two phase) stream.4 TGP also contended that its use of\nelectron microscope (EM) coupons in a discontinuous manner was permissible under the\nregulations because this type of coupon was intended to be used differently from standard\nweight-loss coupons and that it considered them to be corrosion-detection coupons rather than\ncorrosion-monitoring coupons.\n5 With respect to Coupon S4504, TGP explained that Hurricanes\nKatrina and Rita impacted the timing of the installation of the next coupon.6\nFederal gas pipeline safety regulations7 were promulgated under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety\nAct of 19688 to provide adequate protection against risks to life and property posed by pipeline\ntransportation and pipeline facilities.9 The corrosion control regulations,10 which include\n§§ 192.475 and 192.477, were issued to ensure that gas pipeline operators identify and address\n3 Closing at 2-6.\n4 Response at 9.\n5 Id. at 5-6. Weight-loss coupons, as the name implies, indicate corrosion rates by being weighed upon removal.\nThe difference between the original weight of the coupon and the weight when removed is recorded and compared\nwith the series of coupons in the same pipe location for multiple time periods of similar length. This allows an\noperator to determine whether corrosion begins accelerating.\n6 Id. at 7.\n7 49 C.F.R. Part 192.\n8 Pub. L. No. 90-481, 82 Stat. 720 (Aug. 12, 1968).\n9 49 U.S.C. § 60102(a)(1) (2012).\n10 49 C.F.R. pt. 192, subpt. I.\n\n\n\n5\ninternal corrosion risks before they become pipeline failures. The regulations require pipeline\noperators to monitor their pipelines for internal corrosion when the potential for corrosive effects\nexists, and to take measures when necessary to ensure any such effects are minimized. Notably,\nthe regulations do not prescribe corrosion coupons as the only permissible means of conducting\ncorrosion control monitoring. If coupons are used, however, the regulations expressly require\nthat they be checked “two times each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding\n7½ months.”11\nWith respect to TGP’s argument that it transported tariff quality gas, not corrosive gas, and that\nas a result it was not in violation of the cited regulations regardless of the manner or\neffectiveness of its use of coupons, it should first be noted that previous PHMSA enforcement\ncases have described the factors relevant to whether an operator should consider gas in a given\npipeline to be corrosive for purposes of making decisions about the need for corrosion control\nmonitoring. In the Consumers Energy case, I found that the presence of substances found in the\nnatural gas transported by U.S. pipelines such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and certain\nmicrobes and bacteria, in the presence of water and condensates, can corrode the internal surface\nof a pipeline. 12 In addition, certain pipe areas, such as low spots and locations where the gas\nstream does not have sufficient velocity and/or turbulence to carry away condensates, may also\ncreate environments conducive to internal corrosion and must be monitored.13\nAt the hearing and in its Closing, TGP argued that “tariff quality gas is dry gas under normal\noperating conditions and is not corrosive.”14 TGP expressed the view that even when water or\nliquids are introduced, “the potential for corrosion is minimal if the condition is temporary.”15\nTGP further explained that liquid water can be removed through maintenance pigging and liquid\nremoval devices such as pipeline drips, or can be reabsorbed into the gas stream. TGP also\nexplained that its Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) take into account various factors such as gas\nquality monitoring, liquid and soil sampling, on-site testing for water, and other factors in\ndetermining whether to “develop a monitoring program…”.16\nTo the extent that TGP argued for the proposition that tariff quality gas transported by pipeline\nneed not be monitored for any potential corrosivity, I do not agree. As TGP itself acknowledged,\ntariff quality gas, which can already have a moisture vapor content of seven pounds of water\nvapor per million cubic feet of natural gas, can experience “short term upsets” during which\n“liquid water or water vapor that could condense is introduced into the pipeline...”.17 The fact\n11 49 C.F.R. § 192.477.\n12 See In the Matter of Consumers Energy, Final Order, CPF No. 3-1999-1001. (Mar. 5, 2009) (available at\nwww.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement). See also In the Matter of BP Pipelines (North America), Inc., Final\nOrder, CPF No. 4-2007-5003. (July 19, 2010).\n13 Id. at 2.\n14 Closing at 2.\n15 Id.\n16 Id. at 6.\n17 Id. at 3.\n\n\n\n6\nthat liquid water can be removed through maintenance pigging or liquid removal devices such as\npipeline drips only underscores the fact that liquids susceptible to interacting with other\nconstituents in the gas can be present at times, even if not continuously or at all locations. More\nto the point, this case does not present a scenario where an operator conducted a technical study\nat the time its pipeline system was designed and began operating that provided a sound basis for\nconcluding that a corrosion coupon monitoring program was completely unnecessary. Here, the\npipeline designers or TGP itself decided long before the OPS inspection that a corrosion coupon\nmonitoring program was needed and installed corrosion-monitoring coupons on this pipeline\nsystem.\n18 Given that TGP (or its predecessors) originally made this judgment about the need for\na coupon monitoring program, OPS is acting within its regulatory authority in conducting\ninspections to determine whether this coupon monitoring program is being conducted effectively.\nWith respect to the allegation in the Notice that TGP’s coupons were not always placed in\neffective locations, OPS provided only one alleged example of a problematic location in the\nNotice, that being Ship Shoal 167A. As described in detail at the hearing, TGP placed this\ncoupon in a sample chamber along a short section of vertical pipe that was downstream from\nliquid re-injection and upstream from chemical inhibitor injection.19 TGP contended that this\nlocation was “the most effective location on the platform to measure the corrosion potential of\nthe commingled liquid prior to chemical injection and that these conditions exist[ed] over only\n4½ feet of piping which is all in the vertical position. . .”20\n. OPS maintained that the coupon\nneeded to be located nearer the bottom of the pipe where any corrosive constituents would be\nlikely to accumulate.\nAs TGP correctly noted at the hearing, the corrosion control regulations do not require the “most\neffective” coupon placement. Both parties did point out that TGP’s own written operating and\nmaintenance procedures require that “As a general rule, coupons should be placed in…the most\nsevere location with respect to corrosion.”21 However, while it could have done so, OPS did not\ncite the regulation that requires an operator to follow its own written operating and maintenance\nprocedures and did not present evidence that TGP’s alleged coupon misplacement was\nsignificant or systemic. Moreover, OPS was able to cite only a single example of alleged\ninadequate coupon placement, which I find to be insufficient to support the general allegation\nthat TGP’s coupons were not always placed in effective locations. Accordingly, having\nconsidered all of the information and arguments presented on this issue, I find that OPS did not\nprove the allegation that TGP’s coupons were not placed in effective locations. The extent to\nwhich this finding warrants a reduction in the penalty amount proposed in the Notice will be\naddressed in the Assessment of Penalty section below.\nWith respect to the allegation that TGP’s corrosion monitoring coupons were not maintained in\nthe gas stream continuously and checked twice per calendar year, TGP argued at the hearing and\nin its Response and Closing that its use of EM coupons in a discontinuous manner was\n18 It appears that corrosion inhibitor was also determined necessary to be injected into the pipeline.\n19 Hearing Presentation at 67-71.\n20 Id.\n21 Response at 8.\n\n\n\n7\npermissible under the regulations because this type of coupon was intended to be used differently\nfrom standard weight-loss coupons and that it considered them to be corrosion-detection coupons\nrather than corrosion-monitoring coupons.22\nTGP stated that its electron microscope (EM) coupons were typically exposed for a 30 to 45 day\nperiod and that additional exposure would actually render the readings unusable.23 TGP\ncontended that EM coupons offer some advantages over traditional weight-loss coupons in terms\nof precision of measurement.24 OPS noted that section 5.2 of National Association of Corrosion\nEngineers (NACE) RP0775-2005 industry standard states that “Continuous monitoring is\nessential so that changes in the corrosion rate in a system may be detected as soon as possible\nafter they occur.” 25 This ensures that corrosivity is detected promptly, as opposed to being\ndetected by infrequent EM coupon monitoring only after it has potentially reached harmful\nlevels.\nTGP is correct that the regulations do not expressly state that corrosion coupons are required to\nremain in the gas stream continuously. The regulations do, however, state that if coupons are\nused they must be checked twice per calendar year and the regulations must be applied in a\nmanner that gives a logical effect to this twice yearly requirement. At the hearing, TGP\nacknowledged that the period between coupon installations ranged from 4 months to nearly 21\nmonths.26 Pipeline gas characteristics, however, are dynamic. Over time the flow within a\npipeline may transition between corrosive and non-corrosive. If the requirement to determine\ncorrosivity were not continuous, the use of a coupon in a manner that provides only a “snapshot”\nobservation of a few weeks with year-long gaps in between would fail to capture temporary\nincreases in corrosivity during the inter-observation period and may not capture cumulative\ncorrosive rates and trends over time. Similarly, while the company’s use of additional\nmonitoring technology27 may have provided additional information on corrosivity, it too was\nnon-continuous.\nWith respect to Coupon S4504, TGP acknowledged that it was removed on January 19, 2005,\nand not replaced at that location until January 20, 2006. At the hearing, TGP stated that on\nMay 19, 2005, its SME evaluated the first coupon, on September 20, 2005 the company\nscheduled a replacement coupon for installation the next month, and sometime later the “re-\nevaluate immediately” marking inadvertently and erroneously overwrote the SME’s conflicting\nrecommendation.28 Therefore, in this instance TGP did not execute its EM coupon monitoring in\n22 Id. at 5-6.\n23 Hearing Presentation at 49.\n24 Id.\n25 This NACE standard is not incorporated by reference into Part 192 and is therefore not enforceable. It does,\nhowever, shed some light on the industry consensus about the technical basis underlying the need for continuous\nmonitoring.\n26 Hearing Presentation at 39-43.\n27 Id. at 41.\n28 Id. at 59-61.\n\n\n\n8\naccordance with its own schedule in place at the time.\nHaving considered TGP’s arguments, I am not persuaded that any advantages of using EM\ncoupons on a short-term basis obviate the need for continuous monitoring if coupons are being\nused in a corrosion control monitoring program.29 It should be noted, however, that nothing in\nthis decision forbids the use of EM coupons. For example, EM coupons could be used\ncontinuously (of course they would have to be replaced more frequently than weight-loss\ncoupons) or a one month EM coupon could be used in-between a series of weight-loss coupons\nas long as there are no periods in which no coupon is installed at a location where the operator\nhas previously determined a coupon is needed.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.475(a) and 192.477 by failing to use the corrosion\ncoupons in its internal corrosion control monitoring program in a manner that effectively\nmonitored for potential corrosive effects insofar as Coupon S4504 was removed on\nJanuary 19, 2005, and not replaced until January 20, 2006, and as a result Respondent did not\nmeet the requirement that if coupons are used they must be checked two times per year. To the\nextent that Respondent’s explanation about the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the\ntiming of the coupon replacement may constitute mitigating circumstances, it will be discussed\nin the Assessment of Penalty section below.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $28,000 for the violations cited above.\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $18,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. §§ 192.475(a) and 192.477, for failing to conduct its internal corrosion control\nmonitoring program in a manner that effectively determined that any internal corrosion was\nbeing minimized. As set forth above, I found that with respect to the allegation that Respondent\nfailed to place its corrosion coupons in locations where they would be effective, OPS did not\nmeet its burden of proving this aspect of the allegations and I have withdrawn it. Accordingly, I\nfind that a proportional reduction in the penalty amount proposed in the Notice is warranted for\nthis aspect of the allegation.\n29 TGP’s semantic distinction between “corrosion detection” and “corrosion monitoring” does not alter this\nconclusion.\n\n\n\n9\nThis brings us to Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.475(a) and 192.477 insofar as\nCoupon S4504 was removed on January 19, 2005, and not replaced until January 20, 2006. In its\nResponse, TGP explained that a conflict between the immediate replacement recommendation\ngenerated by its software program and a subsequent determination made by its SME contributed\nto the failure to replace the coupon immediately.30 TGP also noted that Hurricanes Katrina and\nRita struck the Gulf of Mexico respectively on August 29, 2005, and September 24, 2005, and\nthat this contributed to coupon S5340 not being installed until January 20, 2006.31\nWith respect to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of this violation, when a corrosion control\nmonitoring program is put in place, failure to carry it out in an effective manner can have a\nsignificant impact on safety. Respondent is culpable for this violation despite the subsequent\nimprovements in its internal software system; such subsequent actions do not constitute a good-\nfaith effort to comply prior to the violation. I recognize that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita\noccurred in 2005, but both occurred over seven months after the previous coupon was removed\nand does not diminish Respondent’s culpability at the time of the violatio","truncated":true,"body_characters":48659}